Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 14-9-1990 passed in Crl. Appeal no.64/90 by 7th Additional Sessions judge, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the earlier stay granted in the Appeal itself was vacated. 2. The fact, in short, for the purpose of this revision is that the petitioner is claiming to be the employee of one Desein (New Delhi)Pvt. Ltd. and under the terms and conditions, the petitioner being employee of desein Ltd. was provided a quarter bearing No.1077 in Sector IV of bokaro Steel City belonging to Bokaro steel Ltd. For unauthorised occupation of the quarter a proceeding bearing No. AE 96/87 was instituted as against the petitioner by the Estate Officer under public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (to be called hereinafter as the Public Premises act) and an order was passed for vacating the quarter in occupation of the petitioner. Against that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District judge No.105/87. That too was dismissed and the order of the Estate officer was confirmed. Subsequently the complaint case No.157/88 was instituted by the Estate Officer, Bokaro steel Ltd. as against the petitioner for unauthorised occupation of the aforesaid quarter under Sec.11 of the said Act before the SDJM. Chas in which vide judgment dated 11-5-90 the petitioner was found guilty and then an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.64/90 was preferred in which earlier stay was granted but the Additional Sessions judge vide order dated 14-9-90 vacated the stay order and that has been challenged in this revision. 3. On the other hand it is the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the aforesaid quarter of Bokaro Steel Ltd. and he had already been evicted. But still he made a wrongful entry for which a criminal case was instituted and the petitioner was evicted and now the quarter is in occupation of Bokaro Steel ltd. So this petition is infructuous. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the criminal Appeal No.64/90 was instituted, so a wrong order was passed on 14-9-90 during the pendency of the appeal so liable to be set aside. 5. Both the parties had not been able to state if at all the Criminal Appeal no.64/90 is still pending or not. It is quite possible that the appeal might have been disposed of. 5. Both the parties had not been able to state if at all the Criminal Appeal no.64/90 is still pending or not. It is quite possible that the appeal might have been disposed of. Moreover the petitioner already was found to be in unauthorised occupation of the aforesaid quarter and the order of eviction passed by Estate Officer in A. E.96/87 had duly been confirmed in Appeal No.105/87 by the District Judge and further in C. P. case No.157/88, the petitioner was also found guilty by s. D. J. M. and he has preferred Criminal appeal No.64/90 and that appeal is pending before 7th Additional Sessions judge, Dhanbad. In that view of the matter, this revision application for the same purpose is definitely not maintainable. Even on merit the petitioner is not entitled for any stay in this revision and the petitioner can very well agitate his case in Criminal Appeal No.64/90 itself and that appeal if at all pending before the Court below may be disposed of without any further delay. 6. In the circumstance, I am of the opinion, that there is no merit in this application and so it is dismissed. Revision Dismissed.